Why the hell is gay sex immoral?

This question goes out to all the people who actually believe that gay sex is immoral. I am formally challenging that belief. If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of those reasons.

Attendance by Bap33 is mandatory. By the way, that avatar is pretty gay for someone who's homophobic.

I didn't mean it to sound like the Nazi were linked by religion or race/tribe, I meant that their target for extermination need only be Hebrew.

Do you think the Nazi (before going full strong-arm) used the nanny state mentality to foster the German public into supporting the forced wealth transfer from the Hebrews in Germany? From what I have read it seems like the Nazi got the public on their side by letting it be known that German's would be the shop owners, as soon as the cheating Jews were removed (for their own safety). I think that helps to explain how a public that was smart, and kind, and religious, and free, fell for the Nazi lie.

When democracy becomes tyranny by majority, we get demo-crazy, and bad things happen.

very good point.
I would imagine this is why we were supposed to follow the constitution until the political monster grew too big, and votes started being purchaced by vote seekers. When that started happenening, the founders expected free Americans to remove the political tyrants and start over from page one of the constitution. We may have missed our chance, or we may not be so bad off that we are ready to get our hands dirty. Or we are lazy, fat, and unwilling. Must be the turkey. lol

False statement, my ass. The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Bush's entry into the Iraq War. All caused by religion.

Especially the Holocaust! Dan, you blind yourself.

Spanish Inquisition never used mass killing.

Nazism: totally Christian

Absolute nonsense. You shoot such things all the time. Either come back to something reasonable or let's stop this discussion.

michaelsch, you have a completely wrong view of history. Of course the Nazis were Christians. That's why they killed the Jews. Christians had a long, long history of blaming the Jews for problems and killing them.

Yeah, the Nazis weren't Christian my ass. Who's that leaving church? Oh yeah, Hitler. And what does he have to say?“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”
- Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941

To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And as for the Spanish Inquisition...

The Spanish Inquisition lasted 356 years from 1478 to 1834. That's 356 years of torturing and killing people. It is estimated that several thousand people died, and that's just the ones we know of. Countless others were tortured and permanently maimed. To in any way defend the Spanish Inquisition or to try to minimize that atrocity is utterly despicable and ridiculous.

And yes, religion was certainly the cause of the Spanish Inquisition. Religion, your religion, was intrinsic to this abomination.

"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

Yes, religion played an integral part in the unjustifiable deaths of about one million Iraqi civilians including children.

Freedom is Obedience to Tradition
Woman's World is Husband, Family, Children, Home
Fight Prostitution & Encourage Early Marriage
Media Must be Cleansed of Sexual Filth
Decline of Christianity in Europe is Dangerous
Institution of Marriage Must Be Defended (Fuck, that's DOMA)
Christian Missionaries Should Look to Europe
Burn out the Poison of Immorality (liberal excess)

Hitler's platform reads like an American Christian conservative platform.

Germany was by and large a Christian nation, and socially conservative at that. Hitler was in no way a Christian but he was a politician who recognized he had to coopt the Christians over time. Kinda like modern-day American conservatives, yes.

very good point.
I would imagine this is why we were supposed to follow the constitution until the political monster grew too big, and votes started being purchaced by vote seekers. When that started happenening, the founders expected free Americans to remove the political tyrants and start over from page one of the constitution. We may have missed our chance, or we may not be so bad off that we are ready to get our hands dirty. Or we are lazy, fat, and unwilling. Must be the turkey. lol

Both sides are doing the vote buying with our money. And I'm afraid our political system will collapse on itself. Sometimes AF's well humored advice, doesn't seem so far fetched.

Of course the Nazis were Christians. That's why they killed the Jews. Christians had a long, long history of blaming the Jews for problems and killing them.

I have a sense of Deja-Vu about this topic.

Just to further Dan's Argument:

Hitler's second treaty during his Government - the first was recognizing Lichtenstein as an independent state - was with the Vatican. It allowed the Vatican to continue operating in the Third Reich so long as the Church supported the Fuhrer. It was signed by future Pope Pius XII on behalf of the then Current Pope, Pius XI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

In the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

In the treatise, Luther describes Jews as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[1] Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".[3]

Jews presented as Pigs (and the Torah being received from a Pig's Vagina) were a common theme on Church and Cathedral walls in Germany - both Catholic and Protestant:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau

Besides the Jews, other main boogeymen of the religious tend to be Masons and Jesuits; with Protestants and many Catholics hating both equally. It's not a surprise, because both groups tend to uphold knowledge generally, as well as the independence and sovereign status of various cultures.

Interesting one for any jeans or trouser wearing women:
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD." Deuteronomy 22:5

Note that "Abomination" is the SAME EXACT WORD used in OT for homosexuality:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

It's also a crime to mix fabrics. So no wearing synthetic socks with your cotton pants.

There aren't any prohibitions against homosexuality per se until you get to Paul

Actually I think there is a pretty harsh statement about it in Leviticus somehwere, which is very early in the bible.

Patrick, you've quoted me out of context, which isn't really fair. If you look at what I wrote in context, and at what Leviticus actually says, you'll see that the condemnation isn't necessarily of homosexuality per se. Read literally (and fundamentalists claim to beleve the Bible literally), it actually condemns bisexual orgies:

BTW now that we've mentioned adultery and the 10 commandments, it may be worth remembering that Leviticus condemned bisexuality (possibly only threesomes), not homosexuality per se. An earlier comment mentioned the link between promiscuity and HIV. If you look at the statistics, a majority of people with HIV are women and children. The women tend to get it from their cheating husbands, and most of the children were born with it. If there is overlap between Biblical rules and disease (remembering that the germ theory of disease was not understood during Biblical times), then disease might be one reason for the repeated prohibitions against adultery. There aren't any prohibitions against homosexuality per se until you get to Paul, who by his own account disagreed with nearly everybody, especially the early Christians.

Conjunction:
Used to indicate that something happens during the time when something is taking place: "Frank watched him as he ambled through the crowd"

Read literally, which is what fundamentalists claim to do, it says man shall not also lie with mankind at the same time as with womankind. (If you read "as" more broadly to mean "to the extent or degree" then it might apply to bisexuality, but still not homosexuality per se.) There are other condemnations in the Bible, including condemning women wearing men's clothes (e.g. trousers) as noted by Thunderlips, but those aren't about gay sex per se. There are also plenty of other "abominations" and restrictions in Leviticus, e.g. eating pork or shellfish, handling pigskin (football), wearing clothing of mixed fiber, and Jews dining with Gentiles. Leviticus mainly differentiates the Jews from the Gentiles, so it is a misuse to cite it as a source for broader morality or laws of general application. Some people mistakenly call all of Leviticus' prohibitions "laws", but most are not laws per se; to the contrary, Leviticus says you must have one law, both for yourselves and the stranger who lives among you. Leviticus is like telling the Amish or the Hasidim to dress a certain way and renounce certain things so they'll stay separate; it isn't intended as a law on everybody, and it would defeat the purpose if everybody then dressed the same way and renounced cars in favor of horse-drawn carriages. The only express prohibition in Leviticus against everyone is child sacrifice, which applies both to the Jews and everyone in the area; Muslims violate that literally for their "honor killings" and other denominations ignore it figuratively when they cut off kids who leave the faith or otherwise transgress against it. Many people claim to follow the Bible, but they don't really; for example, they wear clothing of mixed fiber, cut the corners of their beards, and ignore other prohibitions from Leviticus, but then fixate on their misreading of Leviticus 18:22 for reasons of their own (Bap).

The Spanish Inquisition lasted 356 years from 1478 to 1834. That's 356 years of torturing and killing people. It is estimated that several thousand people died, and that's just the ones we know of.

The Spanish Inquisition was a court, sic. It was bad, it was torturing and killing people, but it never did mass killings. There are other examples, like crusades, Bartholomew's night etc, but they are unrelated to the Inquisition.

In 356 years it killed about 40,000 people and each case was documented. Yes, that's horrible, but we talk about 356 years and the area much bigger than just Spain.

During their suppression of Vendee revolts French revolutionaries killed hundreds of thousand of civilians. Apparently it was the first genocide in modern history and it was commited by the first atheist state in modern history.

As of the 30 years war, which indeed started as a religious war, interestingly enough, so called Catholic France fought more on the protestant side, thus proving that the religion was more or less a formal pretext for the war, while real reasons were political, social etc.

This is my last post on the matter: as I said you take all Nazi related staff out of context. Since I think you are smart enough to understand that you do not look for the truth but only look for supporting arguments, IMO there is no use to keep talking about it.

This is my last post on the matter: as I said you take all Nazi related staff out of context.

Heavens, no! we would not want to take any of this "out of context":

And of course we would only want to use full "context" when discussing why Hitler would want to re-institute using a cross (yes the same cross that originated with the Catholic order of Teutonic Knights) for the highest military medals:

What the Nazi insiders actually wanted was to forge a new religious movement, with paganistic Germanism at its center.

Bormann to his gauleiters: "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable."

Perhaps, but Bormann was also a brown-noser and somewhat of an "outsider" when it came to the Nazi inner-circle.

Yes, there is a lot of evidence that Hitler and Nazi's engaged in occult types of activities. Of course no one today as any vested interest in trying to distance themselves as far as they can from the Nazi movement, and paint Nazi's a devil worshiping pagans. What is it they say about who gets to write history...? Also, we know that no true Christian would do anything that a Nazi would do (Just ask Bap).

Could the endgame of the Nazi leadership have been to morph from Christian to paganism? We will never know (Thank god), but certainly the Neo-Nazi movement is still very staunchly Christian.

Anyway, could have-should have-would have...it is relatively immaterial because Hitler sold Nazism to the German public as a Christian movement and right up till the end Christianity was the official religion of Germany. I assume like many politicians and preachers he did not believe fully, but given his interest in the occult he did believe in some sort of spirituality. Who knows...he was never caught snorting meth off a male prostitute (like *ahem* other christian leaders) so we don't have a lot of "hard" evidence as to his true beliefs concerning the bible.

Yes, pre-Nazi Germany had the largest atheist/humanist organizations in the world at the time. One of the first things that Hitler did was seize the assets and dissolve these groups.

"For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."

* * * * *

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
-- Hitler, 1933

One has to thoroughly have their head in the sand to think that the Nazi movement was atheist.

Back to the original question.
"Why is homosexuality immoral?"
I think the question should be two parts:

IS homosexuality immoral?
and
Why do you think so?
With further subcategories of
What is the morality of the natural world ('self-evident' morality, rights, etc)?
to subcategorical questions, "What is self-evident good and self-evident evil in the natural universe?"
If you really want to piss them off: "How does God decide what is right and wrong?"

Personally, I think there is one best way to define "evil": "Any action taken based on unquestioned belief".
Ergo, any religion that discourages questions would be considered evil.

In the long run of the universe, I go with Schroedinger's "life as anti-entropy" to define what is good (moral) in the natural world: anything that contributes more usefulness to the future than it consumes in resources (hence, anti-entropy: localized thermodynamically, of course).

Now, in the context of any human actions, we can see that any one particular action may be good (useful) or bad (consumptive) in a limited context, but overall, the species itself is basically acting consumptively at this point in time. We know that it didn't always act thus because the species evolved in a natural environment, where it would have had to contribute something (if only extra offspring) to be able to continue to survive over generations in a high-risk, symbiotic environment.
Morality in the 'civilized' sense (intentionally created and legally written) rests within an artificial environment.
Anything goes in this imaginary context because the whole point to civilization is to isolate humans FROM the natural world and its tooth/claw risk-based mutation selection process (morality of those fitted to the environment).
Religious morality is basically a Johnny-come-lately idea based on some past experiences that worked in a human-dominated environment, and has evolved liberally to become blind faith in gods, gurus, government and guns (Might is Right). The latest version is the Invisible Hand Job: a philosophy that allows people to run Open-loop until the environment crashes the resource flow. Somewhere in the near future, humanity will either collapse upon itself to some extent or (less likely) step up to the Responsibility plate and truly become intentional and useful to the universe in a generous way, rather than 'living on Mom nature's handouts'.
In the context of diversity of the species and a robust distribution of variants, I don't think one variation of some humans (homosexuality) is really going to be all that much of a problem either way.

But you know what, this whole discussion has become a red herring anyway. It has nothing to do with the still unanswered question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?".

I gave you my answer, you didn't take it. You simply changed it to an absolute and called it wrong.

You gave several answers to why gay sex is immoral. I demonstrated that each one was flawed by logical reasoning and counter-examples. If the counter-examples follow the rule and you cannot accept the counter-example, then the rule must be flawed. If the facts contract the predictions of the rule, the rule must be flawed. If the reasoning is circular, it is flawed.

I'll repeat your reasons and my counter-examples. If you think that any of my counter-examples are not applicable, feel free to explain why.

1. Homosexuals can't bear children

1.1. If choosing to not bear children is immoral, then those who abstain from sex must be immoral. Chastity and abstinence would be immoral.

1.2. This premise does not imply that homosexuality is immoral or that homosexual acts are immoral. It actually implies that the lack of heterosexual activity is immoral.

1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature therefore indicating that natural selection favors having some homosexuality in various species.

1.4 If having sex that cannot lead to procreation is bad then it would also be as immoral as gay butt sex to

a. Have heterosexual sex after menopause.
b. Have heterosexual sex with an infertile partner.
c. Have heterosexual sex with a woman not in the fertile period of her cycle.
d. Have heterosexual sex with a condom or any form of birth control (that will be great for HIV, but lousy for our species).
e. Have heterosexual oral sex or any heterosexual sex act that doesn't deposit the sperm in the vagina.

1.5 In an overpopulated world, not having children is a far superior moral choice than having children. If anything threatens peace, prosperity, and the continuing existence of our species, it's the ecological collapse brought about by overpopulation.

2. Homosexuals would have long ago died out as a species due to lack of proper human breeding.

a. Homosexuality is rampant in nature. The lack of reproduction clearly has not deterred homosexual sex in nature. Furthermore, the theory of kin altruism is sufficient to explain how homosexuality can be genetically advantageous.

b. Homosexuals are not a separate species. Nor do there existence in any way threatens our species or countless others in which homosexual sex takes place.

2. Homosexuals create a terrible example because at a certain age children do everything they see.

2.1. Seeing gay sex won't turn children gay anymore than seeing adults do the dishes will make kids want to do that.

2.2 At most this says that having gay sex in front of children is immoral, but not that gay sex itself is immoral. One could argue just as well that having straight sex in front of children is immoral for exactly the same reasons.

2.3 This premise is circular and therefore meaningless. If homosexuality is not immoral then encouraging other people to participate in it cannot be immoral either. This premise could not possibly justify that homosexuality is immoral because it assumes that homosexuality is immoral in the first place.

3. No parent wants their kids to see gay sex.

3.1 No parents want their kids to see straight sex. That doesn't make straight sex immoral. Same applies to gay sex.

3.2 Parents may not want their kids to experience many things like rock-n-roll and dancing, but that doesn't make it immoral.

4.1 Any set of family values that demonize a child and remove him from the family because of his sexual orientation is no family value at all. Eventually one of your descendants will be gay. When that teenager comes out to his or her family, is it family values to ridicule and condemn the child for being in love with a person of the wrong sex?

4.2 America is a melting pot of cultures and values. Changing values does not destroy out country, but makes it what it is.

4.3 Acceptance of homosexuality does not destroy any good value any more than acceptance of interracial relationships did.

4.4 What really binds our nation together are beliefs in the principles of equality of law and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which demands acceptance of homosexuality.

4.5 Regardless of what happens to the "binding of our nation", this is not a justification for calling homosexual sex immoral. After all, immorality isn't defined as what fractures America.

5. Morality is what we as society agree on. Slavery was completely moral at some point.

Somehow I missed this one the first time around. My counter-example to the first sentence would have been slavery, but if you actually believe that slavery was completely moral at some point in American history because most of society accepted it (well, the most that was in power, at least), then I doubt I can convince you otherwise. By that logic, rape would be completely moral if most of society (at least those in power) accepted it. Heck, even child rape would be moral if most adults in a society were for it. I don't accept that this is how morality works. Morality isn't a popularity contest.

Both sides are doing the vote buying with our money. And I'm afraid our political system will collapse on itself. Sometimes AF's well humored advice, doesn't seem so far fetched.

That's true, and the solution is to run elections the way they do in Britain. The elections are publicly funded and there are no television ads or ads of any kind. Take the money out of politics and you get better politics.

With regards to the whole Nazism thing, Christians want to white wash history by removing the collaboration between various Christian churches including the Vatican with the Nazis and the fact that Nazi bigotry had it roots in Christian bigotry against non-Christians (Jews, atheists, Muslims, gypsies) and homosexuals. This is much like the American south trying to white wash slavery and claiming that the Civil War was about economic issues as stated on the U.S. citizenship test (what bullshit!).

At the same time, communism, an economic philosophy that has nothing to do with belief in god and everything to do with who controls the means of production, is somehow intrinsically atheistic. I guess someone should inform Cuba, a communist state that is highly religious. Also, I don't remember anyone at the last atheist orgy and satanic bacchanal promoting communism. Nor is there anything about atheism that supports (or opposes) any kind of economic system, empiricism, or tyranny. Put simply, communism and atheism do not have any intrinsic connection.

In contrast, the Spanish Inquisition, the slaughter of Native Americans, and the ethnic cleansing by the Nazis do have deep roots in religion and religious thinking. The bigotry, the sense of superiority to subhuman people, the righteous disregard for the rights of others is very intrinsic to religion. Just listen to the phrases: the chosen people, the master race, god's on our side, god bless our nation. Religion is very tribal and territorial.

Here is a fun site of pictures of Nazi's going to mass, celebrating Catholics, etc.

Love of Nazis and a desire to bring back something of an Inquisition continues in Castille today.

Great pics there. In the West, coverage of Croatian atrocities against both Bosnian Muslims and Serbian Orthodox was underreported in the Balkan Wars; the Serbs were held up as the "Bad Guys", when ALL the parties engaged in slaughter and genocide. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the first ethnic cleansings were carried out in Croatia against the Serbian minority there. Hence the Serbs calling the Croats Ustashi and "Nazis" in their propaganda.

Could the endgame of the Nazi leadership have been to morph from Christian to paganism? We will never know (Thank god), but certainly the Neo-Nazi movement is still very staunchly Christian.

Every Western country that became Fascist by itself (without invasion from foreigners and puppeted with a government like Quisling's in Norway) was Catholic.

Italy, Spain, Germany, and Austria. Poland also had a Fascist streak, as did Croatia. Portugal too. Were there fascists in England, Scandinavia, Serbia? Sure, but they were a tiny group outside the mainstream, far from the levers of power, even if they had a few VIP supporters, with no chance of taking over.Dan8267 says

With regards to the whole Nazism thing, Christians want to white wash history by removing the collaboration between various Christian churches including the Vatican with the Nazis and the fact that Nazi bigotry had it roots in Christian bigotry against non-Christians (Jews, atheists, Muslims, gypsies) and homosexuals.

This is the second largest Church in Europe, and made a Basilica by the Pope in 1960, built with slave labor after the Coup against the Spanish Republic. It is basically a monument TO Fascists, and is to this day a site of pilgrimage for Francoists and Ultraconservatives. It contains the tombs of Franco and de Rivera, two bloody ultraright dictators beloved by Spanish Ultraconservatives. It marks the victory of the "Cruzada" to destroy the Spanish Republic, and crush liberals and anarchists and reds, and most especially Catalan and Basque separatists.

Attempts to turn it into a general war memorial are rebuffed by the Spanish Conservative parties, including the so-called moderate right PP (of which former PM Aznar and the current PM are members).

I'll find a video that shows what Castillanos think about the Valle de los Caidos, how God 'saved' Spain by killing hundreds of thousands...

Any set of family values that demonize a child and remove him from the family because of his sexual orientation is no family value at all.

Does this means you support any type of rape, insest, necrosex, beastality, sex with trees, sex with door posts, and sex with cars, and any other type of sex desire that a "child" is "born with"? You (and society) must be able to use a common baseline from which to judge healthy from unhealthy, good from bad, just from unjust, and moral from immoral. Birth defects should be treated, and your system just demonizing people that suggest it, by suggesting "all actions done by anyone in the name of sexual gratification must be accepted" is absurd, and harmful to society and the individual that is being abused.

You're right. Hitler was a Catholic, not a Christian. Hitler was as much a Christian as the pope.

This is 100% correct. Those on here trying to say Nazi's are Chistian are absurd. But, those saying that Catholics were used by Nazi's to pull their crap, and exterminate Hebrews with the help of good German people, yep.